nanog mailing list archives
Re: US-Asia Peering
From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <kurtis () kurtis pp se>
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 22:25:27 +0100
How do you see the failed AMS-IX expansion fit into this? My (very simplified) summary of what happened was that : ...At the time of the origin of the discussion I was peering co-ordinator at KPNQwest, and would have pulled-out of AMS-IX if the plans (and KQ..:) )would have moved on.well of course i'm not bill, but (naturally) i will comment anyway. was AMS-IX planning to expand beyond its original metro and bridge all the XP switches together? if so then i understand exactly why KQ and other ISP's would have pulled out of AMS-IX in protest (and in fear). however, if theexpansion was intra-metro, then i must be confused, because KQ's majorsource of bandwidth revenue should have been inter-metro not intra-metro.
They planed to interconnect other (well, one) other exchanges in NL. Best regards, - kurtis -
Current thread:
- Re: US-Asia Peering, (continued)
- Re: US-Asia Peering Stephen J. Wilcox (Jan 10)
- Re: US-Asia Peering Bill Woodcock (Jan 10)
- Re: US-Asia Peering William B. Norton (Jan 10)
- Re: US-Asia Peering Stephen J. Wilcox (Jan 11)
- Re: US-Asia Peering Paul Vixie (Jan 11)
- Re: US-Asia Peering Stephen J. Wilcox (Jan 11)
- Re: US-Asia Peering Paul Vixie (Jan 11)
- Re: US-Asia Peering Kurt Erik Lindqvist (Jan 12)
- Re: US-Asia Peering Paul Vixie (Jan 12)
- Re: US-Asia Peering Bill Woodcock (Jan 13)
- Re: US-Asia Peering Kurt Erik Lindqvist (Jan 13)
- Re: US-Asia Peering Paul Vixie (Jan 03)
- Re: US-Asia Peering William B. Norton (Jan 06)